As a reminder, the original proposal that troubles me was:
I don't know the details on the circumstances here, but it seems to
me that the point of "public accusations" should constitute
harassment in and of itself. Do we make that explicit?
On 11/10/2019 9:18 AM, Andrew Musselman wrote:
I agree, having a quiet period can allow that pattern to continue longer.
But I'm not sure the suggestion is that anyone can't discuss what happened,
just that a full-on open-letter or Twitter thread in the moment could be
more destructive. Discussing not in public, to gauge reactions and
opinions, would be constructive in my view.
I'm not sure it's being proposed that after an alleged incident has been
inspected that there's a gag order for all time. I believe this community
can find a way to support itself, and if there are grievances that are not
being resolved I would expect that discussion in public would be a natural
next step.
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 8:34 AM Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote:
The problem with even a finite duration quiet period is that it may cut
off the opportunity for other people to come forward and say things like
"X did the same thing to me yesterday and also passed it off as joke
when I complained." or "X said I must have misheard.", or "I overheard X
talking to Y, and X really did say Z". It risks forcing each accuser to
stand alone, with no opportunity to find witnesses, or to find out about
other incidents that would show a pattern and practice. After a
conference ends may be too late to find witnesses to an interaction.
Handling a complaint fairly would mean dismissing it if there is a
dispute about facts and no supporting evidence, just two equally
believable people giving different accounts of the same interaction.
However, as I understand the proposal it is to make going public with an
accusation at any time, not just during a limited duration quiet period
and regardless of whether it is true, an automatic CoC violation. If the
accusation is both public and false, the person making it faces serious
real-world consequences, including a defamation lawsuit and being
publicly shown to be a liar.
On 11/10/2019 7:16 AM, Andrew Musselman wrote:
The tough part about taking conflict directly to a public sphere is it
doesn’t give people a chance to make amends quickly before escalation.
An internal, confidential grace period can give someone a chance to
realize
their alleged behavior affected and/or harmed someone else, whether it
was
intentional or not.
I would expect any complaint to be accepted and taken seriously and
handled
fairly. If we already have a problem with complaints being ignored or
mishandled then we should deal with it in a concrete way now, likewise if
it becomes a problem.
Best
Andrew
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 01:28 Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote:
On 11/10/2019 1:02 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Patricia,
I think Ross said it well.
Just because I saw someone commit murder, doesn't give me the right to
beat
(or hang, or incite others to do) the perpetrator and fair trial is
still a
necessity in our civilized society. Lynching is (I hoped) a thing of
the
past. I am not willing to give up the basic pillars of our society,
just
because someone was offended, or even hurt. Sorry, but to me, the
principle
of "rather let a murderer go free, than risk convict an innocent" is
still
a strong one. But lately, it seems to no longer be the case.
Witnessing a murder does not give you the right to beat, lynch, etc. On
the other hand, you can say publicly "I saw X murder Y", and the police
will not switch from investigating X to penalizing you just because you
said that. Of course, X has a strong case for defamation damages if you
say it falsely.
If I understand what you are saying, and please post a correction if I
got this wrong, if the victim of an ASF code of conduct violation
described the violation publicly you would want the ASF to switch from
investigating the original violation to penalizing the victim for
talking about it, regardless of the truth of the victim's remarks.
With all due respect
Niclas
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 2:48 PM Ross Gardler
<ross.gard...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
IN THIS MAIL I AM ATTEMPTING TO DIG DEEPER THAN THE SURFACE. I AM NOT
ATTEMPTING TO MAKE ANY JUDGEMENT ON ANY SPECIFIC OPINION OR
SITUATION. I
BEG THAT PEOPLE DON'T TRY TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES. IF SOMETHING
SEEMS
"OFF" IN SOME WAY PLEASE ASK FOR CLARIFICATION.
Exactly my position.
Historically rules of confidentiality have also protected the innocent
from false accusations and trial by media.
It's very hard to find the right balance. How might the ASF best
handle
a
situation like this?
Ross
________________________________
From: Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2019 6:18:52 PM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org <dev@diversity.apache.org>
Subject: Re: FYI
Could you clarify who would be prohibited from public statements by
this?
Historically, rules requiring confidentiality have been used to
restrict
victims of harassment from talking publicly about incidents. That has
let harassment and assault continue by preventing discovery of a
pattern
of behavior with multiple victims.
On 11/9/2019 4:55 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
I don't know the details on the circumstances here, but it seems to
me
that
the point of "public accusations" should constitute harassment in and
of
itself. Do we make that explicit?
// Niclas
On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 8:19 AM Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
This is just Uncle Bob being reactionary. What else is new?
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 14:28 Kevin A. McGrail <kmcgr...@apache.org>
wrote:
Yeah just bringing it for others to loop in.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019, 15:26 Sally Khudairi <s...@apache.org> wrote:
Quite a bit of activity about this on Twitter yesterday...
- - -
Vice President Marketing & Publicity
Vice President Sponsor Relations
The Apache Software Foundation
Tel +1 617 921 8656 | s...@apache.org
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019, at 15:18, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.cleancoder.com%2Funcle-bob%2F2019%2F11%2F08%2FOpenLetterLinuxFoundation.html&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=z3qcdMSTYuHeaLivL6ooPBUjYeZDTPqICIIlfihZpCE%3D&reserved=0
--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fkmcgrail&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C3fd9ab83d1884f6c043a08d765846506%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089491620296831&sdata=iw2%2F9S7KS%2BWm3eUzvpMTvuH3%2Fs3MoxEcK6aMQwnxG%2BU%3D&reserved=0
- 703.798.0171
--
Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
